Cyprus, Again!

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Leo oh the turks simply invaded an emtpy land, or did they simply knock on the door and politly ask the people to leave? The turkish military is not some kind of magic police force that masters the soft power of persuasion.... The settlements, forced evictions, lack of compensation, forced territorial divisions, as well as no right of return is pretty much the same foundation as the palistinian problem. Or has the palistinan issue all of a sudden lost its history and boiled down to check points and olive trees?  Turkey was within her right to intervene (if it saved the Turks from outright butchery then i applued them). However, she was not in her right to occupy or divide the island. The settlers have nothing to do with Turkish Cypriot security. it is simply migration under arms no different to isreali policy. They took more of the island than what was reflected in their population. Now they want to press that advantage irrespective of current politics. The war is over, they won, lesson learnt no need to create anothe injustice to replace another one. Leo, nothing would please me more than a unification of the island, but this thread just one piece of clear evidence that neither the Turks nor the Greeks are actually interested in that more than they are interested in getting their own back. Proving that one side was right, and the other wrong. Throwing around over-emotional claims like 'Cyprus is like Palestine' won't get you anywhere. Posting maps and saying 'the Turks took too much land' for their population won't get you anywhere.

The parallels I am talking about stands on its own feet. Settlements for both situations are done to permanently change the demographics, the comparisons is hardly emotional - just obvious. The act of the settlements is emotional, it is for the Arabs and for the Greeks. Forced demographic changes by migration under arms is something that belongs in a past era. It doesnt help the situation but creates more problems down the track.

You haven't explained why the settlements are different, either are just as illegal as the other, the intention is the same. I make particular comparisons, there are differences in the whole affair but i am being quite specific about the main points of similarity. settlements/forced division

There are two things going on, Turkish Cypriot interests and Turkeys interests. I do not belive its one and the same thing, even if they are combined or confused. its is very hard to really gauge what Turkish Cypriots want when mainlanders are voting in TRNC affairs and the militray has so much influence (and many have simply left the TRNC) The hardliners got how many votes? and how many voters are mainlanders? hmm.

You really think the Turkish militray are being completely selfless in this? I know they have a high prestige in turkey but I am much more cynical to take that image at face value. they have their own interest  for the split.

Your other assumption/opinion that i take to task, is that the Greeks are not intersted in peace or living with their neighbors. I can tell you without a doubt that is wrong. 10% of Cyprus is turkish all the 'other but greek' Cypriots live there, while the TRNC is how multicultural? Greeks had issue with

•  an indefinite Turkish army presence,
• not enough settlers getting the boot (they did make concessions see my earlier post) 
  
• the actual peace plan was to complicated, opaque and made Cyprus fragile. (This a country they had rebuilt from nothing and this put it at risk)
• many of these sticking points were late changes to the plan thanks to the mainland Turkish political pressure, hence why i blame them for the No vote and the failure of the plan.
  

Not the Turks themselves, or an arrangement of sorts for unity.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Cyprus is like everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire - once a multicultural highly intermixed place, now a highly segregated ethnic battle ground. The conflicts in Cyprus and Yugoslavia are just an extension of what started in the early 19th century. Each ethnic group just wants to grab its patch of turf and kick all the others off. Neither the Greeks nor the Turks have a single patch of moral ground to stand on. They both need to realise this fact and come to the conclusion that balkanisation was a bad idea after all.

Initally i agreed with this but not really when i thought about.

 Cyprus was not like Crete. The communities were actaully closer on that island than in other Greek/turk populated area. There is something Cypriot about both sides, the split is exaggerated by Turkey vs Greek politics and is imported into the Island by twits from both our sides

You want to make a comparison 'other than Palestine' then look at other parts of the British empire like South Asia. The British overlords like using the minorities for the security forces, giving them a bit better deal over the rest - gaining their loyalty but also splitting the community up a little bit more which makes it easier to rule. Then leaving the place without a robust governance system or cohesive society and to see it fall apart into petty nationalism - oh then getting big militray base out it all. Your simply missing a big component of recent Cypriot history and making generalist assumptions based on what happened in the Balkans


Edited by Leonidas - 24-Apr-2009 at 14:31

Leonadis The parallels I am talking about stands on its own feet. Settlements for both situations are done to permanently change the demographics, the comparisons is hardly emotional - just obvious. The act of the settlements is emotional, it is for the Arabs and for the Greeks. Forced demographic changes by migration under arms is something that belongs in a past era. It doesnt help the situation but creates more problems down the track.

The situation is totally different.

The Turkish intervention in 1974 didn't happen out of the blue, if certain Greek factions didn't start a policy of trying to expell the Turks from the island and tie the island to Greece there would have been no 1974 in the first place. Unfortunately this is all forgotten, the Turks were initially the victims and when the Turkish army came they made Greeks victims aswell.

If the Turkish army decided that Cyprus would be the eternal utopian home of all Turks, invaded for no reason, declared the whole island Turkish soil and rounded the Greeks up into one corner and declared the land was rightfully theres and given by God then we would have parrelels.

The Turkish army was a guaranteur, as nobody in the international community decided to raise a finger for 15 years and when Enosis almost became a reality they had a right to act. Now you can argue about whether they took too much land, about splitting the island, their treatment of the Greeks and so on but saying its like Palestine-Israel is far from the truth.

Leonadis There are two things going on, Turkish Cypriot interests and Turkeys interests. I do not belive its one and the same thing, even if they are combined or confused. its is very hard to really gauge what Turkish Cypriots want when mainlanders are voting in TRNC affairs and the militray has so much influence (and many have simply left the TRNC) The hardliners got how many votes? and how many voters are mainlanders?

Turkish Cypriots have their own elections, people from mainland Turkey don't vote in their elections, they have their own parties.

There is no need for conspiracies, the Turkish Cypriot side voted for a more liberal leader last time round, he didn't get any results, people are fed up and bought in a more nationalist party. These things go round in circles, when the Turkish side has a liberal leader the Greeks have a hardliner, when the Greeks have a liberal leader the Turks have a hardliner.

Your other assumption/opinion that i take to task, is that the Greeks are not intersted in peace or living with their neighbors. I can tell you without a doubt that is wrong. 10% of Cyprus is turkish all the 'other but greek' Cypriots live there, while the TRNC is how multicultural? Greeks had issue with

80% of Greek Cypriots rejected re-unification.

an indefinite Turkish army presence, not enough settlers getting the boot (they did make concessions see my earlier post)  the actual peace plan was to complicated, opaque and made Cyprus fragile. (This a country they had rebuilt from nothing and this put it at risk) many of these sticking points were late changes to the plan thanks to the mainland Turkish political pressure, hence why i blame them for the No vote and the failure of the plan.

 Actually the peace plan had as many sticking points for the Turks as it did for the Greeks, the argument that it was biased in the Turks favour is nonsense. The Greeks at the time had a hardliner in charge, the Turks had a liberal, thats the simple explanation of why one side voted yes and the other no. Papadopolous was telling the Greek side to vote no and so was the church, the Turkish leadership was encouraging the yes vote.

Originally posted by Leo The parallels I am talking about stands on its own feet. Settlements for both situations are done to permanently change the demographics, the comparisons is hardly emotional - just obvious. The act of the settlements is emotional, it is for the Arabs and for the Greeks. Forced demographic changes by migration under arms is something that belongs in a past era. It doesnt help the situation but creates more problems down the track.

The Demographic changes being made are coming from neighbouring peoples who have always been living and ruling that region.
The demographic changes are identical to the changes that split modern turkey and modern greece into two countries - you can't tell me that they aren't countries created by "Forced demographic changes by migration under arms". The Greek population of modern Turkey being forced to migrate to modern Greece, and the Turkish population of modern Greece forced to migrate to modern Turkey.
One country being broken into two.

If you want another parrallel close to Cyprus then you could find it in Kashmir. The Indian government encourage hindu migration into the valley in order to change the demographics for their interests. Or Sikkim, which only acceeded to India after huge migrations into Sikkim from India changed the demographics enough to change the popular vote.

You can start comparing to Israel when a completely foriegn group take Cyprus and disposses the natives of all their land. A land divided between two native groups is not comparable to a land taken from the natives entirely.

Originally posted by Leo You really think the Turkish militray are being completely selfless in this?

No.

Your other assumption/opinion that i take to task, is that the Greeks are not intersted in peace or living with their neighbors. I can tell you without a doubt that is wrong. 10% of Cyprus is turkish all the 'other but greek' Cypriots live there, while the TRNC is how multicultural?

I never said that. I said both sides are more interested in prooving that they were right than in unification.
Your not doing anything to convince me that I'm wrong in that opinion.

You want to make a comparison 'other than Palestine' then look at other parts of the British empire like South Asia. The British overlords like using the minorities for the security forces, giving them a bit better deal over the rest - gaining their loyalty but also splitting the community up a little bit more which makes it easier to rule. Then leaving the place without a robust governance system or cohesive society and to see it fall apart into petty nationalism - oh then getting big militray base out it all. Your simply missing a big component of recent Cypriot history and making generalist assumptions based on what happened in the Balkans

That's a pretty good point actually. I hadn't realised that.

Originally posted by Bulldog Your other assumption/opinion that i take to task, is that the Greeks are not intersted in peace or living with their neighbors. I can tell you without a doubt that is wrong. 10% of Cyprus is turkish all the 'other but greek' Cypriots live there, while the TRNC is how multicultural? Greeks had issue with 80% of Greek Cypriots rejected re-unification.

in that form. It is very disingenuous to use that vote as a sign of their wishes.

 They want a more united Cyprus, the Turkish position is to keep the status-quo as much as possible ie the split/military presence. How ironic that the side that wants to keep as much division on the island as possible in the final 'plan' is saying the other guys who didnt like that particular peace plan (because it splits the nation up to much) are agianst re-unification!

Serously think about this a little deeper. Greek objections are not about living with Turks, just having foreign powers on their island , unequal voting along with not enough integration of the two parts. pff hardly hardline stuff, its not anti turk and its not because they oppose unity. The only people that benfit from the split is foreigners; the British and ankara  - not the cypriots from either side.

 

Leonadis I know the history, but that is decades old. The reason fro the Turkish army presence is long gone,  cant keep going back to a different era in Greek politics to explain current Turkish policy that hasn't changed since then.

I don't think the Greeks are going to charge in armed to the teeth fighting the Turks if the Turkish army was to leave either. However, realistic or not they also have a point, when they didn't have a presence on the island their were many troubles, now they are there, there have been no ethnic conflicts. They are obviously using the situation to their advantage by keeping a large presence on the island, however, the average Turkish Cypriot does not 100% trust the Greek Cypriot forces so they would rather their own forces then put trust in another who have a problematic recent history.

I think the most realistic proposal would be a reduced and equal sized Greek and Turkish force.

Leonadis for sure no one gets what they want 100%, but it was a plan that gave the North side the most comfort.

That's from the Greek point of view, flip the coin and the Turkish hardliners were saying that the plan was a plot to undermine the Turks and was in favour of the Greeks. However, Talat who was more liberal was in power and together with the media convinced people to say yes.

Leonadis in that form. It is very disingenuous to use that vote as a sign of their wishes.  They want a more united Cyprus, the Turkish position is to keep the status-quo as much as possible ie the split/military presence. How ironic that the side that wants to keep as much division on the island as possible in the final 'plan' is saying the other guys who didnt like that particular peace plan (because it splits the nation up to much) are agianst re-unification!

It all depends on what window your looking out from, the Turks accepted a reduced millitary force, hardliners were disgusted with the plan. We can't just blame the Turks for this they did accept the proposals, both sides are as much to blame for the sitation as the other.

Leonadis clutching at straws here, being a neighboring people means nothing in legitimacy. Greeks cant just settle in Albania because we feel like it or because it down the road or because Greeks already live there. Jews have always lived in the region as well and can argue, at least for the ME sourced immigrants, the same logic.  The forced migrations of Greeks and Turks was a absolute nightmare that should never have happened. either way they were agreed outcomes to a war - as an outcome of agreement and settlement of two sides. What is happening in Cyprus is not an agreed outcome. The peace process is far from over, so the settlements during that time frame is not the same thing. Its is also done by Turkey not the TRNC and involves the Turkish militray which is foreign not local.

If the Greeks in Albania started getting rounded up and forced out the country, the Greek millitary may react and protect them if they had a guaranteurship.

The Turkish millitary is not foreign, its the Turkish Cypriots local forces, every Turkish Cypriot does millitary service.



Edited by Bulldog - 25-Apr-2009 at 17:42

Originally posted by Bulldog Leonadis I know the history, but that is decades old. The reason fro the Turkish army presence is long gone,  cant keep going back to a different era in Greek politics to explain current Turkish policy that hasn't changed since then. I don't think the Greeks are going to charge in armed to the teeth fighting the Turks if the Turkish army was to leave either. However, realistic or not they also have a point, when they didn't have a presence on the island their were many troubles, now they are there, there have been no ethnic conflicts. They are obviously using the situation to their advantage by keeping a large presence on the island, however, the average Turkish Cypriot does not 100% trust the Greek Cypriot forces so they would rather their own forces then put trust in another who have a problematic recent history.

the army part  is the real bone of contention. Believe it or not i don't think the Cypriot Turks are all that enthusiastic about the Turkish army either, they just cant say anything about it. Re the quote from the House of commons report below (my bolding)

If we are talking about their (TRNC) own forces, th n fine. that's not off the table , if its the Turkish army from the mainland that's the problem. As i said earlier a UN type force that already exists there for many decades can give comfort to both sides. The insistence on keeping the militray (as many settlers as possible) on the island should not be the deal breaker it is. Its a Turkish wish not a critical point for the TRNC.

I think the most realistic proposal would be a reduced and equal sized Greek and Turkish force.

  de-militarise the whole island would be much simpler and better for the islanders. I think a Japanese style (restrictions) national defense force can be allowed in a phased way but that should be between a re-united Cyprus and its neighbors at a later date. This is for Turkey sensitivities more than anything. Separate this issue to the bi-zonal issues. there are simply two main levels to this, not one.

That's from the Greek point of view, flip the coin and the Turkish hardliners were saying that the plan was a plot to undermine the Turks and was in favour of the Greeks. However, Talat who was more liberal was in power and together with the media convinced people to say yes.

key word 'Turkish hardliner', they may not be Cypriot in thinking. Cypriots doesn't have to equal Greek. Cypriots believe it or not, the greek ones aren't so thrilled about being one with (a political/economic basket case) Greece (if the feel safe enough on their own). They can do a better job themselves (and have) i cant see why Turkish Cypriots would want to import all of Ankara's baggage as well. As long as both side can feel safe they don't need their big brothers to come in and run their show.

...these TRNC whiners are the ones that the most to lose from the change of the status quo; the settlers, the Denkashs of the island, the militray that sponsors them - all who are all quite happy to protect their little pond. they are winners in the status quo.  the vote towards some sort of unity by the rest shows that they just want change, it is of no benefit to remain in a 'solution' imposed by policy from ankara. Its not as simple as Greek vs Turk. Its really is about outside (and some inside) intersts vs change in the final plan.

It all depends on what window your looking out from, the Turks accepted a reduced millitary force, hardliners were disgusted with the plan. We can't just blame the Turks for this they did accept the proposals, both sides are as much to blame for the sitation as the other.

i can because the red line imposed by the militray is unnessary, its a foriegn imposed wish. You have to seperate what ankara wants and what can be done on the island.

The old hands from this website can go into a room and come up with a solution in no time and if the two communities (not greece or Turkey or any settlers) had some real time alone they would come up with a plan. For sure, no doubt about that. the bits that are put into the plan (which isn't bad in many parts) for the Turkish militray (not the TRNC) are the ones that we cant agree on. Annan version 3 had no troops the final version 5 had troops at the insistence of Turkey not the TRNC.

for your interest this British government report is bloody long, but makes for good reading

44. President Papadopoulos referred to the 650 troops as a "bridgehead".[79] One of our witnesses described what we suspect was a representative view of Greek Cypriots that "this was legitimising the presence of the invading forces."[80] The Lordos study shows that even moderate Greek Cypriots feel strongly that it would be inappropriate for Turkey to maintain armed forces in Cyprus and to have the right to intervene militarily even following a settlement. According to Lordos, more than three quarters of Greek Cypriots believe it is essential that Turkey should be obliged to reduce its forces to 650 within a much shorter timescale, and about three fifths demand that the troops should leave altogether and want to see an end to the right of unilateral intervention claimed by Turkey under the Treaty of Guarantee.[81] A shortening of the timetable for a reduction in troop levels is actually the alteration to the terms of the Annan Plan most strongly sought by Greek Cypriots.[82]

  link

in their 'how do we move forward' section they come to the same common sense conclusion i have on the matter. But it gets better..

As we noted above,[257] a majority of Greek Cypriots regard the early departure of Turkish forces from Cyprus as essential. The proposal in Annan 5 for a gradual reduction in those forces to no more than 650 by 2019 was unacceptable to them, mainly because of the slow pace of withdrawal envisaged. No doubt for reasons of national pride as well as for the reasons outlined above, Turkey has been hostile to any suggestion that it withdraw completely. However, if Turkey is serious about joining the EU, she will have to be more reasonable on this point. Turkish Cypriots are, we believe, ambivalent about the Turkish army. Although for understandable reasons they are reluctant to place their views on the record, we heard from several Turkish Cypriot sources when we visited the island that the presence of Turkish troops is not seen as an unalloyed blessing.[258] We believe that many Turkish Cypriots would prefer to see an end to Turkey's military presence, if appropriate security guarantees could be provided. link

link
my bolding

If the Greeks in Albania started getting rounded up and forced out the country, the Greek millitary may react and protect them if they had a guaranteurship. The Turkish millitary is not foreign, its the Turkish Cypriots local forces, every Turkish Cypriot does millitary service.

the garruantorship did not give the right to stay and divide the island, they lost their right as soon as they started the whole TRNC experiment, please look at the original agreement before using it as a source of reasonable explanation. Its not, i know the rules and the Turkey has put them in the bin long time ago

anyway your miss quoting me a bit, i said do we have the right to settle their under force? Does Greece have the right to put settlers on any emptied land in Albania? (irrespective if the should be there or not) answer that.

The Turkish army is as foreign as the Greek army, no question about that. Its a common trick to make Turkey and TRNC as one, they are not the same thing. most Cypriots refuse just to be called greek.




Edited by Leonidas - 26-Apr-2009 at 08:00

Leonadis The Turkish army is as foreign as the Greek army, no question about that. Its a common trick to make Turkey and TRNC as one, they are not the same thing. most Cypriots refuse just to be called greek.

The Turkish army is the Turkish Cypriots army and without them it would have been another Crete, they owe their presence on the island to the army so its no surprise that the army isn't percieved as foreign.

And today, Cypriot means Greek, we all know it, these are just games, there is no Cypriot nation, there are Turks and Greeks. Its not all some grand Ankara conspiracy.



Edited by Bulldog - 26-Apr-2009 at 14:49

Leonadis you ignored 3rd party evidence that suggests your assumptions (that's what they are) on their attitudes are not 100% correct. There is no way for these guys to chose or even express themselves in the TRNC structure so i guess them going along with this is a good sign right? and even in their 'Constitution' they are use terms like 'Turkish Cypriots' and 'Cypriots of Turkish origin' not the other way around.

There are leftists, rightists, nationalists, socialists and every other group of pollitical thought, people arn't locked up and waiting to liberate themselves from the evil Turkish army, Turkish Cyprus is pretty liberal.

Leonadis "The Turkish army is the Turkish Cypriots army" oh c'mon at least don't try and insult my intelligence, what 200,000 people with maybe half actaully being from the island,  man 30+ thousand soldiers? i dont think so....

All Turkish Cypriots serve in the millitary, its as much their army as any other mainland Turks.

There are two armies in the northern part of Cyprus, one of them composed of soldiers from Turkey called ‘Cyprus Peace Forces’ and the other called ‘Security Forces’ (GKK). The ‘Cyprus Peace Forces’ consists of 40 thousand soldiers and the Turkish Cypriot ‘Security Forces’, made up of Turkish Cypriots and settlers doing their ‘compulsory military service’. Both are under the direct command of the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey. Turkish Cypriots cannot be the commander of the ‘Turkish Cypriot Security Forces’ since the law, governing the ‘Security Forces’ states clearly that anyone who would be commander of the force, should come of ‘pure Turkish origin’ and Turkish Cypriots are not considered to be as such. There have been various complaints by Turkish Cypriot officers working in the ‘Security Forces’ about this issue. Any male living in the northern part of Cyprus has to do compulsory ‘military service’ which is 15 month or 12 month in the army.

The source is hardly objective and the most of what is written is laughable and hyperbolic.
You don't have to go far to find high ranked Turkish Cypriots in the Turkish army, one of the most famous and prominant being Alparslan Turkes.

is it true, is the head of the total TRNC force always from the mainland?

You may find it interesting that the head(s) of the greek cypriot national guard (Republic of Cyprus' army) has always been citizen of Greece, though AFAIK there's no law for it.

I have given up hope on a resolution of the Cyprus problem. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the power balance, or unless Europe radically reevaluates its current policy, neither of which seem likely in the near term, there will be no move away from the current status quo.

Britain is quite comfortable with the status quo as it seeks to maintain a power balance on the island, where neither the Greeks nor the Turks get what they want. By keeping Greek Cypriots weak it can maintain its sovereignty over the bases without any challenge.

Turkey also needs the bases in the north due to the geopolitial importance of the island.

Given the politcal impasse, Greek Cypriots have been hoping for a "legal" resolution of the conflict, one imposed by the courts in the EU. It would be interesting to see where those efforts would lead. Recently there has been a court victory by greek cypriots, where a Luxembourg courts has ruled that demolition orders issued in the south are valid throughout europe, and apparently can be used against any european citizens owning property in the north.